“I don’t think I’m going to vote. I don’t think reporters should vote.”- Anderson Cooper
Anderson Cooper, you are either lying and you actually vote, or you don’t even have your own opinion. In any case, Anderson Cooper should be the poster child for media neutrality bias because he goes out of his way to remain neutral — even if it means not voting.
A neutrality bias is the idea of favoring near perfect neutrality in every story, even stories where one side is indefinitely right.
Media neutrality bias can be positive in many ways, but can be extremely damaging at the same time—depending on the issue.
At this moment you might be asking, what’s the problem with staying neutral? Because the media pretends to be neutral even in issues where one side is clearly right, they’re misinforming their viewers. For example, during a climate change debate between Bill Nye “the Science Guy” and climate change denier Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the media framed the issue as an even debate so they could remain neutral. The reason this is a terrible idea is that it frames the issue as a 50/50 debate when, in reality, the issue is factually undebatable.
Imposing neutrality at all times is extremely damaging because it starts to affect real policies for real problems. For example, there isn’t enough done about climate change because people deny its existence, people deny its existence because the media frames the issue as an even debate as opposed to a scientifically proven fact.
Climate change does in fact exist, and yet many Americans do not agree. One reason they’re painfully misinformed is because much of mainstream media has never come out and stated the cold hard facts that prove climate change exists, even though it would help the American people. The argument that many in the media are trying to sell is that they do not want to be biased. My reply back to them is that their argument is terrible, their reporting is worse and people now believe that real problems like climate change is debatable—which will result in more disasters.
Another argument by those in the media is that they do not want to lead the conversations by taking a stand, but rather report on the issues. I believe there is a difference between distributing facts, and being the leading advocate for a particular side.
There are many social issues that warrant honest neutrality, such as abortion, where nothing is a clear and there is no fact based argument that can prove which side is right. On the other hand, there are times warrant the media to put their foot down and admit which side, according to facts, is right.
During this campaign season there have been many opportunities for people in the media to end their neutrality bias and take a stand. Donald Trump has said we should kill the families of the terrorists and we should approve waterboarding even if it doesn’t work. In both cases, the media simply stayed neutral, reported what he said, and that was it.
They should have followed up by saying the statements made by Donald Trump were against International and U.S. law—because it’s an illegal war and goes against the protection from cruel and unusual punishment. However, because the media stays neutral, people are having a debate on whether or not we should enact these illegal policies, even though it’s an undebatable subject.
My recommendation to solve the problem of media neutrality bias is to be fair to all sides, but deal with the facts after each debate. If one side just happens to be right based on facts, then so be it. Unless the media takes a stand to deliver the facts when it is necessary, then they are failing at their job.
Reporting the realities of the issue isn’t always about being neutral. True reporting will, at times, mean the media will have to report the blunt facts to accurately inform viewers on the issue.
Follow Zach on Twitter @ZachMoss6